OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

Why some Units of Measurement are not considered valid for exams?

Implementers
#1

Hi everyone,
running the dqd on our data we have noticed some problems due to units of measurement that although standard and valid for OMOP are not considered correct for some exams.
For the exams with concepts 3034426, 3013466 among the possible units of measurement there is the second, we have mapped the second to the concept 8555 and not 9212 as it is reported in the checks that DQD does. Since both concepts of second are valid and standard how come only one is considered valid for the DQD on these exams?
Instead for the exams with concepts 3006627, 3015681 are considered valid unit of measurement like: Ehrlich unit per milliliter, arbitrary unit per milliliter or Bethesda unit per milliliter but unit per milliliter is a unit of measurement which is not considered valid. How come?

#2

Thanks for this report. There is a known issue with the plausible unit checks returning false positive failures. The omission of plausible units from these lists may be due to an error in the mapping process that was run to produce the lists. We are in the process of overhauling this check to improve the accuracy of the plausible unit lists in the threshold files.

That said, for the first 2 concepts you mention - I wonder if concept 9212 is actually supposed to represent seconds from the latitude/longitude perspective, not time? If we look at 9212 in Athena, it’s not related to any other concepts, and its concept code is ". 8555, on the other hand, has concept code s and is related to many time concepts.

For concepts 3006627, 3015681 could you please share the missing unit concept ID you were expecting to see as well? Thank you!

Tagging @Dymshyts and @clairblacketer for visibility.

#3

Hi Katy,
For the concepts 3006627, 3015681 we were expacting to found in the valid units the concept 8763 (Unit per milliliter).

Instend for the concept 9212 we didn’t think about the arcsecond, and acutally it could be.

Thank you for your tempestive response.

#4

Thanks for the additional info; this does seem to be an error in the plausible unit list. I’ve filed an issue here in our GitHub repo: https://github.com/OHDSI/DataQualityDashboard/issues/471

We will probably fix this as part of the initiative to reevaluate all of the plausible unit concept IDs, which might take a while. Thanks in advance for your patience and for reporting this issue!

t